ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS EĞRİSİNİN AMPİRİK OLARAK ANALİZİ: MEKSİKA ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2018, Sayı: 20, 267 - 284, 18.01.2018

Süleyman Yurtkuran , Harun Terzi

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.350401

Cited By: 9

Öz

Bu çalışma; Meksika’da 1971-2015
döneminde otoregresif gecikmesi dağıtılmış model (ARDL), sınır testi,
Bayer-Hanck eşbütünleşme testi, hata düzeltme modeli ve Hatemi-J asimetrik
nedensellik yöntemi yardımıyla kişi başına düşen karbon salımı, kişi başına
düşen kömür tüketimi, finansal gelişim, kişi başına düşen gayri safi yurtiçi
hasıla ve kişi başına düşen gayri safi yurtiçi hasılanın karesi arasındaki
ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Sınır ve Bayer-Hanck testleri sonucunda
seriler arasında uzun dönemde eşbütünleşme ilişkisi olduğu sonucuna
varılmıştır. Yapılan ARDL testi sonucunda uzun dönemde kişi başına düşen kömür
tüketimi, finansal gelişim ve kişi başına düşen gayri safi yurtiçi hasıladan
kişi başına düşen karbon salımına doğru tek yönlü ve istatistiksel olarak
anlamlı bir ilişkiye ulaşılmıştır. Finansal gelişimin karbon salımını negatif
olarak etkilemesi, Meksika’da finansal gelişim arttıkça çevre kirliliğinin
azaldığını göstermektedir. Kişi başına düşen gayri safi yurtiçi hasıla ile
karbon salımı arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı tespit edilen ters U
şeklindeki bu ilişki, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezini destekler
niteliktedir. Kömür tüketiminde artış karbon salımını arttırdığı için korumacı
politikalar uygulanması ekonomik büyümede azalışa sebep olabilir. Bu yüzden
enerji kaynaklarının verimli kullanılması politika yapıcıların öncelikle
hedefleri arasında yer almalıdır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Karbondioksit Salımı, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, Ekonomik Büyüme, Kömür Tüketimi

EMPIRICAL ANALYSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE: MEXICAN CASE

Öz

This study aims to investigate the relationship between carbon emission
per capita, coal consumption per capita, financial development, income per
capita and the square of income per capita in Mexico covering the period from
1971 to 2015 and using autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach, bounds
testing, Bayer-Hanck cointegration testing, error correction model and Hatemi-J
Asymmetric causality model. The bounds and Bayer-Hanck tests for cointegration
indicates that the analyzed variables are cointegrated. ARDL test result
revealed that there is a one-way and statistically significant relationship
moving from coal consumption per capita, financial development and income per
capita to carbon emission per capita in the long-run. The negative impact of
financial development on carbon emissions shows that as financial development
in Mexico increases, environmental pollution decreases. This inverted U-shaped
relationship, which is statistically significant between income per capita and
carbon emissions per capita, supports the Environmental Kuznets Curve
hypothesis. Applying conservative policies may cause a decrease in economic
growth because the increase in coal consumption increases carbon emissions.
Therefore, the efficient use of energy resources should be a primary goal of
policy makers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Environmental Kuznets Curve, Economic Growth, Coal Consumption

Kaynakça

• Ahmed, K. (2017). Revisiting the Role of Financial Development for Energy-Growth-Trade Nexus in Brics Economies. Energy, 128, 487-495.
• Al-Mulali, U. ve Ozturk, I. (2015). The Effect of Energy Consumption, Urbanization, Trade Openness, Industrial Output, and the Political Stability on the Environmental Degradation in the MENA (Middle East And North African) Region. Energy, 84, 382-389.
• Banerjee, A., Dolado, J. ve Mestre, R. (1998). Error‐Correction Mechanism Tests for Cointegration in a Single‐Equation Framework. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267-283.
• Bayer, C. ve Hanck, C. (2013). Combining Non‐Cointegration Tests. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 34(1), 83-95.
• Birdsall, N. ve Wheeler, D. (1993). Trade Policy and Industrial Pollution in Latin America: Where are the Pollution Havens? The Journal of Environment & Development, 2(1), 137-149.
• Boswijk, H. P. (1994). Testing for an Unstable Root in Conditional and Structural Error Correction Models. Journal of Econometrics, 63(1), 37-60.
• Boutabba, M. A. (2014). The Impact of Financial Development, Income, Energy and Trade on Carbon Emissions: Evidence from the Indian Economy. Economic Modelling, 40, 33-41.
• BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2016). Erişim Adresi https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf.
• Brown, R. L., Durbin, J. ve Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships over Time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (methodological), 149-192.
• Claessens, S. ve Feijen, E. (2007). Financial Sector Development and the Millennium Development Goals (No. 89). World Bank Publications.
• Dinda, S. ve Coondoo, D. (2006). Income and Emission: A Panel Data-Based Cointegration Analysis. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 167-181.
• Dogan, E. ve Seker, F. (2016). The Influence of Real Output, Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy, Trade and Financial Development on Carbon Emissions in the Top Renewable Energy Countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074-1085.
• Dogan, E. ve Turkekul, B. (2016). CO2 Emissions, Real Output, Energy Consumption, Trade, Urbanization and Financial Development: Testing the EKC Hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1203-1213.
• Ekins, P. (1997). The Kuznets Curve for the Environment and Economic Growth: Examining the Evidence. Environment and Planning A, 29(5), 805-830.
• Elliot, B. E., Rothenberg, T. J. ve Stock, J. H. (1996). Efficient Tests of the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica, 64(8), 13-36.
• Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 251-276.
• Fisher, I. (1932). Booms and Depressions
• Frankel, J. A., ve Romer, D. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? American Economic Review, 89, 379-399.
• Frankel, J. ve Rose, A. (2002). An Estimate of the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade and Income. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), 437-466.
• Friedl, B. ve Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of CO2 Emissions in a Small Open Economy. Ecological Economics, 45(1), 133-148.
• Gomez, M. ve Rodriguez, J. C. (2016). Analysis of Causality between Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions: The Case of Mexico 1971-2011. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Environmental, Chemical, Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering, 10(12), 1074-1079.
• Granger, C. W. ve Yoon, G. (2002). Hidden Cointegration. University of California, Working Paper, 2002-02.
• Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger A. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement, National Bureau of Economic Research, 3914, 1-39.
• Halicioglu, F. (2009). An Econometric Study of CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, Income and Foreign Trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156-1164.
• Hatemi-J, A. (2012). Asymmetric Causality Tests with an Application. Empirical Economics, 1-10.
• Iwata, H., Okada, K. ve Samreth, S. (2010). Empirical Study on the Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 in France: The Role of Nuclear Energy. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4057-4063.
• Jalil, A. ve Feridun, M. (2011). The Impact of Growth, Energy and Financial Development on the Environment in China: A Cointegration Analysis. Energy Economics, 33(2), 284-291.
• Jalil, A. ve Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions: a Cointegration Analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-5172.
• Javid ve Sharif (2016). Environmental Kuznets Curve and Financial Development in Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 406-414.
• Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration-with Applications to the Demand for Money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169-210.
• Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality, The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
• MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical Distribution Functions for Unit Root and Cointegration Tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 601-618.
• Managi, S. ve Jena, P. R. (2008). Environmental Productivity and Kuznets Curve in India. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 432-440.
• Narayan, P. K. (2005). The Saving and Investment nexus for China: Evidence from Cointegration Tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990.
• Narayan, P. K. ve Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Economic Growth: Panel Data Evidence from Developing Countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 661-666.
• Nasir, M. ve Rehman, F. U. (2011). Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Emissions in Pakistan: An Empirical İnvestigation. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1857-1864.
• Pao, H. T., Yu, H. C. ve Yang, Y. H. (2011). Modeling the CO2 Emissions, Energy Use, and Economic Growth in Russia. Energy, 36(8), 5094-5100.
• Pata K. U. ve Yurtkuran, S. (2017). The Relationship between Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in the Selected Member Countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA): An ARDL Bounds Test Approach. Iranian Economic Review, 21(2), 341-364.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
• Saboori, B. ve Sulaiman, J. (2013). Environmental Degradation, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption: Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Malaysia. Energy Policy, 60, 892-905.
• Selden, T. M. ve Song, D. (1994). Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162.
• Shafik, N. (1994). Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46(5), 757-773.
• Shahbaz, M., Jam, F. A., Bibi, S. ve Loganathan, N. (2016). Multivariate Granger Causality between CO2 Emissions, Energy Intensity and Economic Growth in Portugal: Evidence from Cointegration and Causality Analysis. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(1), 47-74.
• Shahbaz, M., Khraief, N., Uddin, G. S. ve Ozturk, I. (2014). Environmental Kuznets Curve in an Open Economy: A Bounds Testing and Causality Analysis for Tunisia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 325-336.
• Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S. A., Mahmood, H. ve Arouri, M. (2013). Does Financial Development Reduce CO2 Emissions in Malaysian Economy? A Time Series Analysis. Economic Modelling, 35, 145-152.
• Shahzad, S. J. H., Kumar, R. R., Zakaria, M. ve Hurr, M. (2017). Carbon Emission, Energy Consumption, Trade Openness and Financial Development in Pakistan: A Revisit. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 185-192.
• Soytas, U., Sari, R. ve Ewing, B. T. (2007). Energy Consumption, Income, and Carbon Emissions in the United States. Ecological Economics, 62(3), 482-489.
• Stern, D. I. (1998). Progress on the Environmental Kuznets Curve? Environment and Development Economics, 3(2), 173-196.
• Stern, D. I. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439.
• Stern, D. I., Common, M. S. ve Barbier, E. B. (1996). Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable Development. World Development, 24(7), 1151-1160.
• Tamazian, A., ve Rao, B. B. (2010). Do Economic, Financial and Institutional Developments Matter for Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Transitional Economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-145.
• Tang, C. F. ve Tan, B. W. (2015). The Impact of Energy Consumption, Income and Foreign Direct Investment on Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79, 447-454.
• Toda, H. Y. ve Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1), 225-250.
• Yavuz, N. Ç. (2014). CO2 Emission, Energy Consumption, and Economic Growth for Turkey: Evidence From a Cointegration Test with a Structural Break. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9(3), 229-235.